Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 2377844" data-attributes="member: 32740">The 3E rules embraced everyones inner desire for the purely tactical, purely mechanical.  Since the mechanics aspect of the game is part and parcel to it (and even disregarding the roleplaying aspects of it can be a viable way to approach the game) they endeavored to put an end to lingering arguments directly pitting the roll vs. role sides of the debate about which is BETTER.  With the "Rules Mastery" idea they acknowledged that since "working the rules" could never be outlawed as such they'd do better to adopt the practice wholeheartedly as part of the game itself.  It had the advantage (along with the rules changes themselves) of being able to provide a definitive answer to virtually every purely mechanical question. IMO WotC has now gone too far and have come to effectively promote the "roll" over the "role" part of the game.  I can understand why, of course - it's the dark side.  It's quicker, easier, and more seductive to concern yourself with the purely mechanical side of the game, whereas the actual roleplaying part of the game cannot be narrowly defined, categorized, analyzed, boxed up and presented in unarguable, definitive answers as purely rules questions can.  If someone asks, "Explain how/why rule X works with rule Y," (a rules question) the answer is really pretty easy to logically derive.  If someone asks, "Explain why this character would want to do X or Y," (a roleplaying question)the answer becomes vastly more subjective and quickly delves into areas that are not reduceable to logical, mechanical dictates. Roleplaying can make use of rules options but that's not what it's about.  It delves into motivation, personality, plot, character, story, etc. - things which rules do not decide for you.  Such things can be discussed and debated but they can't provide THE ANSWER. So, while the non hard-rules aspects of the game are not by any means gone they have become MUCH less what the game is about from an official standpoint because it's so much easier and more productive to focus on just the crunch instead of the fluff.  I just think it's a mistake to do so, as much as it's a mistake to deny that the purely tactical is ALSO an important part of the game.  It's BOTH.  People may prefer one aspect of the game over the other which is all well and good, but I'm of the opinion that the two need to be stressed EQUALLY and at all times, even though one of them can't be quantified like the other.  For every hard-rules related question they answer they need to make it understood that ROLEplaying can, and even sometimes SHOULD make the hard-rules answer irrelevant.  You can make up your OWN rules, draw your OWN conclusions, and emphasize or discourage any part of the game you want.  Officially though it should be neither just a tactical exercise, nor a mere free-form improvisational exercise.  It's both, equally.</blockquote>

Verification